Edit 2015-05-07: 3 recently posted a new job listing… with the same code.

3 Denmark recently announced a job opportunity (Danish) looking for student developers. They wrote the job description in C#, which I think is fairly cool. Overall, the code looks fairly alright, and the job seems interesting, so I would recommend you apply.

I am definitely in the target category, currently being a student at the IT-University of Copenhagen on the final semester of my bachelors. I will not apply, seeing as I already have a great student job, but I will look through their code and provide some feedback.

I am fully aware that this is supposed to be a fun way of announcing a job, however it does also provide a rare look into the company’s (or at least one of their developer’s) code style.

I am mostly commenting based on Uncle Bob’s Clean Code guidelines, and I should emphasize that any code style is subjective. I do, however, believe the code can be made slightly more readable (and hence, better).

Using/namespace

The namespace and using statements seem to be switched up a bit in this code. There can be several namespaces in a single file, but using statements affect what is accessible in the whole file. Hence, using files are traditionally placed in the beginning, outside of namespaces:

using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
namespace JobAd

Properties

One of C#‘s neater features is the existence of properties, which make getters and setters obsolete, and allow for nice control of access of internals. In the 3 code we see them used nicely, however the Skills property leaks implementation. You should never leak a list in your code, unless absolutely necessary. In this case it isn’t. I would rewrite the property without a setter, using a private internal field:

Unnecessary variables

In the JobApplicationAwesomenessLevel (which, by the way, is internationally recognized as the most important factor when hiring developers) method, we see an unnecessary variable, isQualified. This variable doesn’t actually make the code more easily readable. Consider the two:

bool isQualified = ApplicantHasRequiredSkills();
if (isQualified)

… versus …

if (ApplicantHasRequiredSkills())

The latter is much closer to natural language and more easily readable, and thus, preferable.

Further on, in ApplicantHasRequiredSkills, we see the variable hasSkill, which uses an inline LINQ query. It would be much more readable if this statement had been moved out to a different method. This, in turn, would make the hasSkill variable obsolete:

if (HasSkill(skill))
{
continue;
}

In the CountNiceToHaveSkills method, we see an entirely unused parameter. This should be removed.

Repeated code

The code that returns the number of relevant programming skills is repeated between MetaSkillBonus and CountNiceToHaveSkills. This should be extracted into its own method.

String constants

A couple of string constants are used. This should generally be avoided. SkillCategory could be an enum or otherwise simply an object. It should not be a bare string, as anything (many invalid things) can be passed, and the error will not be caught before this string is actually used.

Naming

CountNiceToHaveSkills is named inconsistently with the other methods gathering AwesomenessLevel-points. Using a consistent language is very important as it reduces confusion. A name that indicated the currency of AwesomenessLevel might be preferable. For example, the methods could be named NiceToHaveAwesomenessLevel and MetaAwesomenessLevel.

The enums used are ALL CAPS. There is no reason for this. This is quite simply a remainder from back in the days where one was forced to use integer constants, and should be avoided.

LINQ

Personally I do not much care for the LINQ syntax used here. I think it is a horrible idea to mix different types of syntax in the same code. Instead, I would use the LINQ syntax that conforms to C# code standards:

The way LINQ is used in the 3 code results in the this keyword being necessary. I would argue that writing code there this is necessary means that you are doing something wrong (though, depending on the convention used by your team, constructors are allowed to use the keyword).

Conclusion

The code, overall, is fairly well-structured, and the ordering of methods makes it easy to read. I would give it an overall score of 7.5/10. My full, refactored code can be seen in this Gist.